Clipping of news on Brazilian Culture, Law and Citizenship
10.21.2015
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.
transparent image
The collection duplicate directly current account, even for a system error, generates moral damage. In addition to the compensation due, the company responsible for the debt must reimburse the consumer twice the total charged. Thus understood the judge Fernanda Bolfarine Sport, the Small Claims Court Regional da Lapa, in condemning an insurer.
In the case, the insurance company has formalized two automotive insurance policies for the same car. This duplicity has caused the owner of the well-received collection of four monthly installments in a single month. In addition, the discounted value has caused the action of the author's account stayed negative which generated interest because of overdraft usage. According to Milena de Oliveira Rosa, a lawyer who represented the plaintiff, "the service provider is responsible for repairing the damages caused to consumers by defects related to the service offered."
In his defense, the insurer argued that occurred the fault of the plaintiff, who had contacted two brokers to make sure the proposed contract. It argued further that the customer is in default and that the improper collection should be considered as compensation for late payments. In analyzing the case, the judge said that even if the author had hired two different brokers to submit a tender, the company "could not this have issued two policies to handle it well."
She said the system failure does not claim that the fault is exclusive third. "The flaw was that the defendant issued two policies and charges made in duplicate to the author, unbalancing the finances of it," he said. On the grounds of default, the judges said that the failure to pay does not justify the "unilateral will of the insurer" to offset debts. "For the payment of premiums defendant must make use of own and not rely on the defense in return," he said.
Thus, Judge Fernanda Bolfarine Sport ordered the insurer to reimburse double the amounts paid by the plaintiff, as it borders Article 42, sole paragraph of the Consumer Defense Code. The company must also pay for the losses arising from bank charges, and pay compensation of R$ 4000 in damages.
Click here to read the decision.
Process 1007706-83.2015.8.26.0004
Source: Idec
To access the IDEC website, click here.
Our news are taken in full of our partner sites. For this reason, we can not change their content even in cases of typographical errors.
transparent image
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.